title: Assessment of anterior segment tumors with ultrasound biomicroscopy versus anterior segment optical coherence tomography in 200 cases.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) versus anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) for imaging of tumors of the anterior segment of the eye.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective, noninterventional case series.
  
  
  METHODS
  We included 200 patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  Review of medical records of patients who underwent both UBM and AS-OCT for evaluation of anterior segment tumors.
  
  
  METHODS
  Comparison of tumor surface and internal visualization.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There were 200 eyes with anterior segment tumors involving the iris stroma in 96 (48%), ciliary body in 14 (7%), combined iris and ciliary body in 32 (16%), iris pigment epithelium (IPE) in 44 (22%), conjunctiva in 6 (3%), sclera in 4 (2%), and others in 6 (1% each). The diagnoses included nevus in 75 eyes (38%), melanoma in 47 (24%), cyst in 48 (24%), epithelioma (adenoma) in 5 (3%), metastasis, melanocytosis and melanocytoma in 4 eyes each (2%), and others (1% each). Image analysis (UBM vs AS-OCT) revealed adequate visualization of all tumor margins (189 [95%] vs 80 [40%]), posterior tumor shadowing (9 [5%] vs 144 [72%]), and high overall image quality (159 [80%] vs 136 [68%]). Comparison for better image resolution (UBM vs AS-OCT) disclosed UBM provided better overall tumor visualization (138 [69%] vs 62 [31%]) and better resolution of the posterior margin (147 [74%] vs 53 [27%]), whereas AS-OCT provided better resolution of the anterior margin (40 [20%] vs 160 [80%]) as well as better overall resolution of anterior segment anatomy (41 [21%] vs 159 [80%]). Better resolution was found with UBM for pigmented tumors (n = 162; 107 [66%] vs 55 [34%]) as well as for nonpigmented tumors (n = 38; 23 [61%] vs 15 [39%]). Regarding location, iris tumor resolution was similar with each technique (49 [52%] vs 45 [48%]).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  For anterior segment tumors, UBM offers better visualization of the posterior margin and provides overall better images for entire tumor configuration compared with AS-OCT.
authors.affiliation: Wills Eye Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
authors.forename: Carlos
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Bianciotto
authors.forename: Carol L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Shields
authors.forename: Juan M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Guzman
authors.forename: Massi
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Romanelli-Gobbi
authors.forename: Douglas
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Mazzuca
authors.forename: W Ross
authors.initials: WR
authors.lastname: Green
authors.forename: Jerry A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Shields
mesh_terms: D000236:Adenoma / Q000175:diagnosis*; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000869:Anterior Eye Segment / Q000473:pathology*; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D005134:Eye Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008545:Melanoma / Q000175:diagnosis*; D033401:Microscopy, Acoustic / Q000592:standards*; D008875:Middle Aged; D009506:Nevus / Q000175:diagnosis*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D041623:Tomography, Optical Coherence / Q000592:standards*; D055815:Young Adult